THE problem with GM is not proving that it does do harm, but proving that it doesn't! We simply do not know what damage fucking with nature in this way will affect the planet.
One of the aims of GM is to produce a crop that is resistant to particular herbicides. Currently small doses have to sprayed at regular intervals, but once the crop is resistant you can do one big mother of a spray and, as Merrick says, saturate the fields. These chemicals then leech into the water table and the plants soak them up. Making them resistant does not stop them absorbing the chemical, but sumply stops it killing the plant. The next step is you get to eat and drink lots and lots of the nasty chemical!
The modification of plants to resist a particular disease always sounds very similar to the vaccination process we use on ourselves and I do find it more difficult to argue against this. On the other hand, this doesn't prevent the crop from carrying the virus, but stops the virus killing the crop. Most vaccines allow us to produce antibodies that kill the virus and don't just make us tolerant of it. Do plants have immune systems that can modify themselves like ours can?
Anyway, the food (and the good land to grow even more) exists in the west to feed the planet already. The immediate solution is surely to grow this and distribute it to stop <i>people</i> starving (please don't just mention kids to make your argument more emotive) and then plough all the huge sums of money that a lot of people have and don't really need into improving the lives of these people.
How about introducing a 5% 'charity tax' on all large companies worldwide?
|
